Menu

Today, we have another guest post from our European reader, with some musings on history, divorce, and mythology:

1.Victory is sweet, even though it tends to take a long time. I SUSPECT that my my self-estranged & self-separated wife will find herself in the Maria Callas’ Mother situation quite soon. Maria Callas, the OPERA singer, was born in 1923 in New York of Greek immigrant parents. When Maria was about 11 the Mother humped off back to Greece with “HER” children while telling the father to keep the dollars’ tsumanai flowing. The Mother told EVERYBODY else (including the children) that the father was an abusive drunk. When Maria Callas found out why she (Maria Callas) had NO Father, she, (Maria Callas) NEVER EVER spoke to the Mother again. Granted, the parents were somewhat reconciled on the Mother’s death-bed, but Maria Callas STILL refused to speak to her Mother.

2. The most famous divorce ever, as you know, is the divorce by Henry VIII of England, of his wife Catherine of Aragon. When Catherine, in 1527, first heard that Henry, planned to divorce her, she went to Confession. Henry, as you know said that his marriage to Catherine was invalid, as Catherine had previously been married to his brother Arthur, two years Henry’s senior, and three years Catherine’s junior. It is true that the above situation, had been a law of the early Church, as Henry always claimed, but it had been modified, as the Church expanded to say that provided the wife and brother A had done nothing inside the bedroom, she could marry brother B. She claimed to the priest in Confession in 1527, that on their wedding night, in 1501, Arthur was legless drunk, and had to be almost physically carried upstairs. She then said that once the bedroom door closed, Arthur collapsed on the bed to sleep it off. She then sat on the bed beside him. She said that she later fell on top of Arthur and dozed off, but she adamantly maintained that they got no further. Arthur left the next morning for Wales, and died soon after. During the Divorce Court hearing in 1529, Catherine repeated, the exact same story as she knelt in front Henry. As Catherine lay dying in 1536, aged fifty, quite old for that time, she again went to Confession, having sent for a priest, and repeated the exact same story. She had the priest write down her Confession in 1527 and 1536. She then had it sent to her nephew King Charles 1 (Carlos Primero) of Spain. Both statements, with absolutely no difference in what Catherine had said, turned up years later. In view of the fact that Catherine’s story NEVER wavered, and Henry varied his story to suit different circumstances and audiences, I think that we can now say that Catherine was telling the truth and Henry was not.

3. Similarly, in 1520, the then twenty year old Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V was persuaded to allow a totally unknown German monk called Martin Luther address the Diet or Parliament in Worms, the following year, 1521, on Luther’s religious views. Charles was a devout Catholic. He was Emperor of what we would now call Holland, Belgium Luxemburg, Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Western Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia Northern and Eastern France, plus the far north of Italy, roughly ‘the hammer’ of Italy connecting the far SE of France and Slovenia. When his political advisors heard about this plan, they were outraged, and wanted him to kill Luther, problem solved. But Charles refused, saying that he could not break his word, once given. So in May 1521, he sent one of his knights to meet Luther at a pre-arranged spot, just as he had promised. The knight then escorted Luther on the two weeks’ journey to Worms, where the Diet was held. This in modern terms would have been the equivalent of allowing him address the European Parliament, or putting him on the Euro News today. Luther said his piece, and while the knight was escorting him back to the pre-arranged spot, Luther’s supporters, not trusting Charles, kidnapped him. No evidence has ever emerged to suggest that Luther knew of the kidnapping, or that Charles planned to break his word, or was planning to allow anybody else do so. Charles, who was also Charles 1, King of Spain, Carlos Primero, retired from his different royal duties between 1554 and 1556, and died in a monastery outside Salamanca in 1558, aged 58. To the end of his days, nobody, but absolutely nobody could accuse him of dishonesty. Conclusion: Keep YOUR end of the bargain. Let the other chap break his end of the bargain. History will vindicate you.

4. There is a story, along the same lines from America. When the American Constitution was being written, some of the Founding Fathers wanted the US Senators to be appointed for life to enable them to put the national interest first, and resist populist pressure. Eventually the compromise reached was that the Senators were almost like Ambassadors, appointed to represent their State in Washington, to the Federal Government. Senators were popularly elected after 1912, I think. After the US Civil War, the Northern twenty seven States were dominated by the Republican Party. The Republican Party was divided into the ‘Lincolnites’ who wanted reconciliation with the defeated twelve Southern States, and the ‘Radicals’ who wanted to exploit the defeated South until it was bled dry, and then start again. In 1866 Kansas recalled one of its Senators, a Lincolnite and replaced him with Edmund G. Ross. Ross was a Radical. No matter how harsh the exploitation of the defeated South was, it was never enough for Ross. He was the most belligerent, extremist, hardline, unreasonable politician of the belligerent, extremist hardline, unreasonable politicians of the Radical Republicans. No matter what was done he was not satisfied that it was tough enough on the South. President Johnston, nothing to LBJ was a Lincolnite. He was the only Southern Senator who had stood with the Union/Northern side. He had been a Democratic Senator from Tennessee. He was on Lincoln’s ticket in the 1864 Presidential election, and became President after Lincoln was murdered. In 1867, the Radical Republican leaders decided that they would impeach the President, as he had constantly used his veto to stop their plans. To do that they needed a simple majority in the House of Representatives, after which the President was tried before the Senate, and had to be found guilty by a two-thirds majority of the full Senate, not just those there on the day. They got their House majority, no problem. At that time there were fifty four Senators, two from each State. There were forty two Republicans and twelve Democrats. It was assumed that the Democrats would back the President in the Senate vote and this happened. Quite soon into the proceedings in the House, six long-serving Republican Senators announced that as the reckoned that the whole thing was a joke, they were going to vote to acquit the President. This meant that the Radical Republicans could not afford to lose any more votes. By all the rules Ross should have been Impeachment Vote No. 1. However his remark ‘Now that we have him in the dock, we must give him a fair trial’ to Senator Sprague of New Jersey was merely the start of his problems. The Radical leaders threatened him with loss of his Senate seat, and the end of his political career, bankruptcy and jail, on false charges. All this happened. A few days after his vote to acquit the President, the Kansas State Assembly recalled him. He ended up a jailed, bankrupt fraudster, soon afterwards. When he was released from jail, he was sleeping on the streets. But in 1872 the US Supreme Court stated that he had been correct. Conclusion: History ALWAYS vindicates those who do the right thing.

5. I have no doubt but you have heard of Cronos, a mythical King in Ancient Greece. He overthrew and killed his father. After learning that he, Cronus, was destined to be overcome by his own sons, just as he had overthrown his father, he devoured all of his children as soon as they were born, to pre-empt the prophecy. When the sixth child, Zeus, was born, Zeus was hidden and later fulfilled the prophecy. Conclusion; No matter how ALL-POWERFUL a Tyranny may appear to be it will EVENTUALLY be overthrown.

6. I have NO DOUBT but you heard of Icarus, the bird-man of Greek legend. His father, Daedalus made two pairs of wings out of wax and feathers for himself and his son Icarus so they could escape from Crete where they were held prisoner. Daedalus tried his wings first, but before taking off from the island, warned his son not to fly too close to the sun, nor too close to the sea, but to follow his (Daddy’s) path of flight. Overcome by the giddiness that flying lent him, Icarus soared through the sky curiously, but in the process he came too close to the sun, which melted the wax. Icarus kept flapping his wings but soon realized that he had no feathers left and that he was only flapping his bare arms, and so Icarus fell into the sea and drowned. Conclusion: ALL Ponzi Schemes crash in the end, the bigger the Ponzi Scheme, the bigger the Crash Mess.

7. I have NO DOUBT but you heard of Procrustes, a rogue smith and bandit of Greek myth. Procrustes physically attacked people by stretching them or cutting off their legs, so as to force them to fit the size of an iron bed. Conclusion: Facts CANNOT be changed to suit a pre-existing theory.

8. Before he invaded Russia, Napoleon said “Apres trois mois, la Russie me demandera la paix/After three months, Russia will ask me for peace” to one of his generals. In June 1941, as Germany prepared to invade Russia, German officers on the ground (as opposed to the Nazi leadership) told the troops that the serious fighting would last 6 weeks, that the Germans would be at the Urals in 14 weeks and that they would all be back home in Germany for Christmas. As a matter of FACT the Germans destroyed the ENTIRE Soviet Air Force in a week.

9. In 1941, as Hitler’s armies were racing towards Moscow, Stalin summoned Ivan Stamenev, the Bulgarian Ambassador to Moscow to the Kremlin, and asked him to mediate with the Germans, as Bulgaria was neutral. Stamenev refused saying ‘Even if you have to retreat to the Urals, you will beat them in the end’,in reply to Stalin a prediction, that Time, proved correct. Men and families are now back at the Urals. However, do NOT worry as this toxic tsumanais called ‘Family Law’ & ‘Feminism’ in Western countries WILL come to an end. If you had said ‘This is the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union’ on December 24, 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, you would have been the butt of EVERY joke as people rolled around the streets laughing at you. We all now KNOW that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan WAS the beginning of the end of the Soviet Empire. Slowly, men and families are moving westward. We are NOT QUITE YET in the position of the Soviet trooper Sgt. Alyosha Kovalyov who on May 02, 1945, hoisted the Soviet flag over the Reichstag in the famous photograph from our History books, but we are getting there.

10. The day WILL come when Families hoist the Flag of Freedom over the TOXIC MT EVERSTS called ‘Family’ Law’ & ‘Feminism’ in Western countries. Within twenty years in Western countries, we will see some of the cheerleaders for the Feminist/Liberal/Child Abuse Agenda doing the General Deboi & Julius Streicher Act.

Julius Streicher

Julius Streicher 1885 – 1946 was a Nazi newspaper owner in post WW1 Germany. His racist newspaper even by Nazi standards spewed forth the most vile virulent hatred of Jews. He incited Germans to the persecution and to the extermination Jews. For “the persecution and the extermination Jews” you may read “the persecution and the extermination of the family & fathers” in Western countries including modern Ireland. Hitler was NOT tough enough on the Jews for him. After WW2 he claimed to know NOTHING of any anti-Semitic campaigns NEVER MIND any Death Camps. He was tried at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and executed by hanging.

General Deboi

After Stalingrad, the Russians captured 22 four-star German generals. One of these generals, General Deboi was appointed group spokesman as he could speak French, Europe’s international language of that time. Deboi was born in 1893 in Vienna and in 1912 he joioned the GERMAN Army. During the Russian-organized press conference Deboi stressed ‘Je suis autrichien, je ne suis pas allemand’ constantly, to anybody who would listen.

There are a lot of meaningless phrases that make the rounds. One of these that wannabe intelligent people pass around to make themselves seem rational is “evidence-based decision making.” This phrase is often used in politics and public policy, where one side will use it to describe the adoption of policies they like (with the implication that the other side is not using evidence-based decision making). It is also contrasted with ideological decision-making.

Now, I am not against using evidence to inform a decision; using evidence is a good thing. As a stand-alone, face-value concept it is unobjectionable, how can anybody be against evidence? But this unobjectableness is the reason for its meaninglessness.

Everybody in politics and public policy uses ‘evidence’ to make decisions. In the days of yore, the autocratic king may occasionally have indulged himself in the occasional bout of thoughtless whimsy, but in today’s bureaucratic world, no policy decision is made without rounds upon rounds of evidence, discussion, writing, revision, etc. Even the autocratic king’s bouts of whimsy were usually based on evidence and fact. “People over six feet are tall” and “an army of tall people amuses me” are both evidence-based facts that can be used to inform policy. The other may not be interpreting evidence the same way as you, they may impute differing levels of legitimacy to certain forms or instances of evidence than you, and they may be using the evidence to pursue different values than you, but they are using evidence.

Using the phrase evidence-based decision making in a modern public policy context is as meaningless as going around saying a four-sided square when discussing geometry. But meaningless phrases are commonplace, the context of the phrase reveals a more important and deep stupidity.

Any time someone uses the phrase with any intent at creating even the tiniest amount of semantic meaning, the semantic meaning is (either implicitly or explicitly) evidence-based as compared to ideological (or opinion-based, which is the same thing), where the ideological is irrational (and therefore wrong). Nobody ever points out the idiocy of this semantic meaning.

To make a trite example, the fact that you need to breathe oxygen or you die has absolutely no decision-making implications standing on its own. Only when you create a value system around breathing does the need to breathe factor into decision-making. The suicide and the astronaut will both make entirely different evidence-based decisions on that particular fact.

To make a decisions requires a value-system: the value system under which the decision is being made is the most important part of any decision-making. The value system will create a goal. Reason will create a plan to achieve a goal. Evidence upon which to reason is the final and least important part of a decision-making architecture.

Another word for value-system is ideology. All public-policy decisions are first and foremost ideological. Anybody who thinks they aren’t is so ideologically brainwashed that they are not even aware that they have their own ideology.

To call attention to the fact you use or favour evidence-based decision making reveals either:

1) a very weak decision-making architecture if using evidence is the best you can say about it,
2) the shallowness of your own thinking, if the facts you use are the deepest you can delve in your own decision-making architecture,
3) ideological blindness, if you can not even see that you are making decisions under a value system,

or, it might reveal something more sinister:

4) the purposeful distortion of language to fool the gullible into accepting a particular ideological as reality.

Practically speaking, the use of the phrase ‘evidence-based decision making’ as related to public policy is usually a signal you can safely ignore the surrounding verbiage as wasteful rhetoric, empty-headed stupidity, and/or attempted manipulation. Rarely will it be used in any commentary on public policy that is worth listening to.

****

Note: Evidence-based decision-making started out as a concept for medical research and practice. In the medical context, it is a reasonable approach and something reasonable to talk about, as the ideology of medicine is mostly firmly established and medical “conflict” (barring corruption) is based around finding the best methods of healing to input into this system.

Today we have a guest post regarding this article from Russell Moore from a John Doe:

This month the Christians everywhere reel over the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex “marriage.” At the same time, one of the issues hurting many is the excessive celebration performed by President Obama even in the aftermath of this perverted approval of sodomy. This raises the question of what we as Christians ought to think about the American Flag, given the fact that many of us are from the United States.

The flag of my home country will now forever be associated with state approval of tax-exempt orgies, and I’m deeply conflicted about that. The flag represents home for me. I love Christ, church, and family more than America, but that’s about it. Even so, that flag makes me wince—even though I’m the descendant of WWII veterans.

Some would say that the American Flag is simply about heritage, not about sodomy. Many pastors fly the American flag on their property even though they believe that the country is hopelessly irredeemable.

Defenders of the flag would point out that the United States flag has not always been like this. At one point it was, after all, considered the most Christian nation on earth. The difference is, though, that the United States has plummeted into a wicked system of Progressivism (though fortunately late in the game). The United States of America is not simply about limited government and individual liberty; the United States of America is constitutionally committed to the continuation, with protections of law, to a great evil. The moral enormity of the sodomy/baby-killing/divorce/secularism/income-tax-is-theft/let’s-bomb-countries-on-the-other-side-of-the-planet question is one still viscerally felt today, especially by those who grew up in families that were broken by such policies.

The gospel speaks to this. The idea of a human being simply approving of another human being’s degeneracy is abhorrent in a Christian view of morality. That should hardly need to be said these days, though it does, given the modern-day perverted enterprises of gay cocaine orgies all over the world. In the Scriptures, humanity is told to engage in life long monogamous relationships. We are told that it is an abomination for man to lie with man (Lev. 20:13). The current system of progressivism is built off of things the Scriptures condemn as wicked: sodomy (Rom 1:26-27), giving women authority (1 Tim. 2:12), the breaking up of families, and on and on.

In order to prop up this system, a system that benefited the Progressivism of urban SWPLs, American religion has to carefully weave a counter-biblical theology that could justify it (the biblically ridiculous “hate the sin, love the sinner” concept, for instance). In so doing, this form of American folk religion is outside of the global and historic teachings of the Christian church. The reactionaries were right—and they were right not because they were on the right side of history but because they were on the right side of God.

Even beyond that, though, the Flag has taken on yet another contextual meaning in the years since. The American Flag is the emblem of Marxist defiance to Western Civilization, of the elitist opposition to White existence, and of the Zionist terrorism of Israel and the Globalists of our all too recent, all too awful history.

White Christians ought to think about what that flag says to our children, especially considering that most of them will be brainwashed in government run schools. The gospel frees us from scrapping for our “heritage” at the expense of others. As those in Christ, this descendant of American veterans has more in common with a Nigerian Christian than I do with some New York atheist who knows how to signal his liberalism.

None of us is free from a sketchy background, and none of our backgrounds is wholly evil. The blood of Jesus has ransomed us all “from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers” (1 Pet. 1:18), whether your forefathers were Communists, Americans, Vikings, or whatever. We can give gratitude for where we’ve come from, without perpetuating symbols or pretend egalitarianism with others.

The Apostle Paul says that we should not prize our freedom to the point of destroying those for whom Christ died. We should instead “pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Rom. 14:19). The American Flag may mean many things, but with those things it represents defiance against common sense and against natural order. The symbol was used to abort the little brothers and sisters of Jesus, to bomb little kids in Vietnam, Germany, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Atlanta, to terrorize Eastern Orthodox preachers of the gospel and their families by threatening to vaporize their churches with nuclear weapons.

That sort of symbolism is out of step with the justice of Jesus Christ. The cross and the American flag cannot co-exist without one vaporizing the other. White Christians, let’s listen to our common sense. Let’s care not just about our own history, but also about our future. In Christ, we were slaves in Egypt—and as part of the Body of Christ we are all slaves too in the United States. Let’s watch our hearts, pray for wisdom, work for justice, love our neighbors. Let’s take down that flag.

Luke McKinney at Cracked has an(other) idiotic article lacking that substitutes snark and insult for anything resembling logic or reason over at Cracked on why we should hate the NRA (Spoiler alert: Because they think you should be free to own a gun). So, I’m going to reply to his distortions:

#5. They’re Paid By Gun Manufacturers

In 2013, Business Insider reported that less than half of the NRA’s revenue came from membership dues and fees …

Which means almost half of its funds come from member dues and fees (it has 5 million members according to wiki). Compared to other lobbying groups, that’s pretty high. For example, the AMA (the second largest lobbying group next the the Chamber of Commerce) supposedly represents physicians. It gets only 16% of its fees from dues.

In this section, Luke throws out a bunch of random unrelated trivia, but never gives any reason why they matter. Why is it bad that the NRA is half-funded by the industry? Luke never explains, he just says it is. In fact, I’m happy that the gun companies support their customers and their freedoms.

Also, notice how Luke links an article saying the NRA engages in illegal activities, when the article’s big findings (after the updates are taken into account) were that a website page was accidentally improperly routed, that taxes were properly paid but incompletely documented, and that a single box was left unchecked on tax papers (not effecting taxes paid).

So, Luke McKinney believes that if your webmaster screws up a link and you screw up your tax forms, nobody should ever associate with you again. I’ve done both, you all must never read my blog again.

#4. They’re Allowed To Casually Talk About Shooting People

Ted Nugent made a joke about shooting senators, therefore the NRA is evil. (That is literally his argument).

Cracked made multiple jokes about beating retarded children, therefore Cracked is evil. If Luke McKinney has any decency at all he will quit writing for Cracked. Or does Luke support beating developmentally disabled children?

#3. NRA Board Members Are All Kinds Of Scary

According to McKinney, because one NRA member argues for school paddlings you should leave the NRA. Maybe you don’t agree with school paddlings, but it is a normal practice and is hardly that frightening to support. 26% of the US supports school corporal punishment: so Luke literally thinks a quarter of the US is so evil you should not interact with them.

Fellow board member Don Young, a congressman from Alaska, described the BP Gulf oil spill as a “natural phenomena,”

What he actually said, right where Luke links is:

Young said: “This is not an environmental disaster, and I will say that again and again because it is a national phenomena. Oil has seeped into this ocean for centuries, will continue to do it. During World War II there was over 10 million barrels of oil spilt from ships, and no natural catastrophe. … We will lose some birds, we will lose some fixed sealife, but overall it will recover.”

If you are not retarded (sorry Luke) you can easily read, even in that conveniently clipped quote, that it is referring to oil spilling into the sea is a natural phenomena, not that the BP spill itself was.

Then Luke just flat out lies:

and thinks wolves would be a great solution to the homelessness problem.

Actually, if you read the article Luke linked, you can see that he wasn’t talking about solving the homeless problem at all. He was talking about how wolves are dangerous and how urbanites who never had to deal with the danger of wolves are making laws to prevent rural folk from protecting themselves. Of course, Luke, being an ignorant urbanite, has no idea about the danger of wolves in rural areas where their aren’t a lot of police and where animal control is far away. It almost seems like he supports wolves killing people.

So, if you are one of the quarter of the US who support paddling in schools and believe that rural people don’t deserve to get eaten by wolves, you are so scary that everyone should disassociate from you.

#2. They’re Pretty Racist

The NRA’s 2015 annual meeting featured a presentation on how whole swathes of American cities had been turned into Muslim “no-go zones,”

It seems Luke McKinney thinks Muslims are a race. I think that makes him a racist, not to mention just plain ignorant of biology, sociology, and religion.

“Demographically symbolic” is a masterpiece. Nine syllables that would be less obvious if he’d just screamed, “Racism sexism racism!” It’s a code word, but not a disguised code word;

He links to this:

Eight failed years of one demographically symbolic president is enough. Eight years of the Obama-Clinton regime has sent our nation into a tailspin of moral decay, deceit and destruction.

I guess Luke McKinney thinks the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein is racist for thinking of the emotional symbolism of Obama’s victory, or Habib Aruna for thinking of the sybolism of an African American winning resoundingly twice, or NBC news, or CTV news, etc. The symbolism of the first African American winning the presidency was a huge topic in 2008. I guess Luke’s ignorant of recent political history as well.

He went on to blame the president for all problems, to describe how guns solve all problems, and to explain, “For that right, NRA will always fight and, believe me, the fight is coming.” Of course, there’s no possible problem with the leader of an armed group blaming a single named individual for all the problems in the world in public and insisting “the fight is coming.” Not even in a country where a Cracked writer can be placed on the No-Fly list for writing a satirical article. Right now the only difference between NRA talks and Al-Qaeda videos is production value.

Do I honestly need to explain how retarded this is?

Maybe I do. Luke believes that using a fighting metaphor to describe a political battle (oh no, a war metaphor, I must be Hitler) is exactly equivalent to to literally talking about blowing thousands of other people, and yourselves, up. (But only when the evil NRA does it).

I am sure Luke has never used a war metaphor before.

#1. They Blame Victims (And Everything Else)

The NRA makes the very accurate point that if you vote against people’s ability to defend themselves they won’t have the ability to defend themselves. This makes them evil (somehow, he doesn’t exactly explain how).

After Sandy Hook, Wayne LaPierre blamed music videos, movies, video games — they’re on course to blame every object in existence for shootings except for objects that actually shoot. Blaming everything except the gun is their only job, and the angrier it makes people, the better it works.

Luke McKinney believes guns are magical objects that have their own agency and willfully kill people. People who don’t share this belief are implied to be evil (for some unexplained reason).

****

Finally, though, through all the distortions Luke finally gets to his real point:

Their sole function is to prevent rational debate…They’ve buried the country under so much bullshit that even intelligent Americans start talking about individual rights and waiting periods, as if there was any sane sequence of words that ends with a peacetime civilian holding an AR-15

He wants to limit any discussion of guns to “rational debate” and by “rational debate” he means people who agree with him that guns he doesn’t like should be banned being able to talk and everybody else should shut up. He wants to control the discussion and he wants to limit your ability for self-defence. And he is willing to distort the truth and slander others to do so.

The whole point of his rambling, illogical, unconnected anti-NRA rant was that he hates the fact that civilians can own a semi-automatic weapon. He wants to take them away from you.

Join the NRA so he can’t.

Join the NRA: where business and citizens work together to protect freedom, where celebrities make jokes, where people don’t believe rural dwellers deserve to be eaten by wolves, where people make and understand common metaphors and use basic communication skills, and where people don’t believe inanimate object have agency.

Land is wary of the Trump enthusiasm from some of the NRx crowd, and rightfully so, we can’t become demotist around here. Being one who occasionally joins in on the Trump enthusiasm, I thought I’d respond. I should note that I’m Canadian and can’t vote in the US and that I wouldn’t vote even if I could, but here’s why NRx should support Trump.

Before I begin, Trump won’t win and even if he does, not much will change (except maybe the wall). No matter how popular Trump becomes, he won’t win the presidency. I doubt he’ll even win the Republican primary. There is no way the Cathedral will let him win; they will do everything in their power to destroy him, and it will work. If, by some miracle, their efforts fail, Trump will lose against the bureaucracy and if he manages to get past the bureaucracy, the Supreme Court will shut him down. Nothing real will change (except maybe the wall). Whatever minor changes he gets through will be reversed a decade later.

#1: lulz: Everybody worth hating hates Trump. Lapping up their tears as he succeeds beyond what anybody expected is a worthwhile endeavour in its own right. There are two things that makes me consider voting and liberal tears is the second (gun freedom is the first). Sure voting means nothing, but it sure is fun to watch liberals suffer when their candidate loses.

#2: The destruction of the Republican Party. The Republican establishment are afraid and are doing what they can to try to stop him, but Trump speaks for the base. By trying to destroy him the GOP will destroy itself. If Trump somehow wins the nomination, the establishment will have suffered a huge blow and maybe the base can use it to clean house and heighten the ideological conflict. But in the more likely event the GOP rigs things against Trump (as they did with Ron Paul) and Trump loses, the GOP’s credibility will be destroyed. How many libertarians were alienated by the GOP’s treatment of Ron Paul? (How much did his treatment do to drive some to NRx?) And he was just a small side candidate. How fully will the base be alienated when the GOP destroys Trump? Unless Trump pussies out (and he does not seem the type to do so), Trump’s run could spark a bloodbath in the GOP no matter what the result. One of NRx’s goals is to get conservatives to realize that the GOP is no more than the controlled opposition who exist to lose and Trump could be a catalyst for endarkenment.

#3: Immigration. Immigration is the issue all the elites try to suppress. Trump is bringing it to the forefront and the people are responding. When he gets shut down and it is further drilled in that their elites hate them, how much endarkenment will that engender among the masses?

#4: Flowing from this: the truth of democracy. If the Trump train starts chugging for real: the Cathedral will bring all the rigging, all the slandering, all the viciousness, all the lawfare, etc. it can against Trump and his supporters and he will almost inevitably lose. How many of his supporters will realize how much of a sham democracy is as this occurs? How many people will people will come to understand the Cathedral and its ways through this?

#5: The Wall. If against all odds Trump wins, the wall will go up. There is no way I could see him back down from it, as the wall is his campaign, and I can’t see anybody who will be able to bring a clear enough threat against him to stop him. Once the wall is up, bureaucratic self-preservation will keep it up. The wall is good because collapse is coming; it is nigh unavoidable. The question is the conditions under which the collapse comes. Living out in Asia, Land may be mostly insulated when the American Empire (and its dependencies: the Commonwealth and the EU) implode, but for those of us who refuse to leave our homeland the on-the-ground conditions when the collapse occurs do matter quite a bit. There are two main issues relevant to collapse: immigration and guns. Guns is obvious: will we have the ability to defend and hold our own when the happening goes down? This issue has mostly been won in the US and is the only real victory conservatives have ever achieved. When the happening occurs, people will inevitably split along tribal lines: when this happens how many of them will there be at war with us? The wall will lessen the number of them and maybe savagery can be prevented or at least mitigated.

#6: The punishment. Trump is both rich enough and bombastic enough to punish those activists attacking him. He’s already suing Univision for $500M and is threatening to sue the Hispanic Media Coalition and NBC for dropping him. Trump has the resources to really bring the heat against those who cave to activists and show that there are consequences for bowing to liberalism.

#7: The fluke. Have you read Caliphate by Tom Kratman? In it, a future-history tells of not-Patrick Buchanan winning the presidency and establishing a dictatorship through manipulation of presidential powers that freezes the decline. While he probably won’t do that, Trump is a wild card. I wouldn’t put much past him if he had the opportunity. If somehow he wins, you never know what could happen. (King Trump, anyone?)

As for the man himself:

Sure, Trump may be clownish, arrogant, and self-aggrandizing, but it’s an honest arrogance. The entire system holds you in contempt and wants to destroy your culture; every wanna-be chekist, SJW, bureaucrat, and politician is arrogant enough to think they should be able to dictate what you think, what you say, what you eat, what guns you can own, what you buy, what you drive, etc. Compared to that contempt, that insufferable, smug, all-consuming arrogance hidden under a thin veil of ‘the greater good’, a bit of honest old-fashioned arrogance is a breath of fresh air. As for clownishness, nothing Trump has done or could do could possibly compare to ‘a thrill up my leg’ and the outright worship everybody bestowed upon Obama 8 years ago. Democratic politics is clownish by its very nature; Trump is the only influential person awake enough to see it.

Sure, it’s hard to tell what is theatre and what is real, but it’s honest theatre. Everybody knows Trump is playing to the audience and he’s not even trying to conceal that he is. Compare that to the democratic theatre we regularly have. The GOP pretending to stand for something, the barely concealed corruption of the iron triangle, the farce of a democracy where Judge Roberts can single-handedly rewrite the law, the delusion we are free when we pay taxes even serfs and slaves of bygone days would think harsh. At least Trump’s show is a fun spectacle, rather than mind-killing, soul-draining drudgery of lies that is our normal politics.

So, however much you hate democracy, however useless you know politics is, however doomed you think we are, you should still agree: